One last thing: this is usually where the discussion goes of the rails, and we get the inevitable response, "How dare you call me crazy!"

<i>...your fairy analogy falls apart because questioning fairies just makes us sane. Questioning fairies does not put us in the same boat as you atheists wrt God..</i>

Right, and the obvious point here is that the reason that "belief in faries" is the sign of a deranged mind, and "belief in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God" is not is purely a social construct--it's a function of numbers.

There's no difference as far as evidence goes, it's just that more people share your hypothesis. That's why it's just as impossible to "refute" fairies, FSM, Teapots, etc, etc... as it is to refute the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.

Anyway, not to belabor the point, but the unexamined cultural assumption here is that "belief in faries == crazy" but "belief in angels == totally sane".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't claim With 100 percent certainty that there aren't green fairies dancing around me right now, it doesn't make it any lesS ridiculous. Look up "the scientific principle".

You make a valid philosophical point. And it cuts to the very heart of the atheist/agnostic hairsplitting. Unfortunately, PP will miss the point entirely, and rather than addressing the underlying epistemological question, will take this as a personal, below-the-belt attack on her personal beliefs.

Actually, the issue here is the way you use ad homimen attacks when you don't have a good answer! Trust me, my "belief system" can stand hearing a reasoned response instead of a silly ad hominem attack like this one.

Here, why don't you try again, go for it! Explain how your labels below make sense. Because, on the face of it, these labels DON'T make any sense:

- PERSON OF FAITH: 100% sure God (or fairies) exist. Includes Tea Party and other fundamentalists (and people who believe 100% in fairies).

- ATHEIST: 1% to 100% sure God doesn't exist. Includes Mother Theresa, people who currently call themselves agnostics and might be unhappy that you are relabeling them, Richard Dawkins, and all people who are 100% sure God doesn't exist and can ignore the intellectual failure of such a position. (Also, anybody who believes with less than 100% certainty in fairies is an "atheist.")

Maybe I'm being clueless, but I'm not sure why you're so keen on this point, as though you've found some sort of deep philosophical inconsistency rather than a meaningless debating point. It's pretty clear when you read Dawkins that he's making a point about what sorts of positive assertions one can make about the world--not just about metaphysical phenomena, but about whether the sun will rise tomorrow, or whether water will run downhill. So when he says he's a "six out of seven" on the Atheist Scale (or whatever), he's not expressing some sort of 1% likelihood that the Christian hypothesis of "God" is true. He's saying that rational people don't make those kind of assertions.

It's in line with saying "We know the Earth is round." It's not, it's an "oblate spheroid". Can we say this with 100% certainty? No. (Perhaps the concept "round" is meaningless in if we were to see things as they "truly" are. Does that mean we're open to the possibility that it's flat disk?

And "the Earth is round" is a positive assertion. The problem gets even thornier with the question of supernatural beings for whom there is no *positive* evidence, because proving a negative is a logical impossibility. Which is why arguments like the "Teapot Hypothesis" or "Flying Spaghetti Monster" are essential to understanding the critique.

A theist who is interested in having a good-faith debate about the issues would make an attempt to grapple with that critique. One who is arguing in bad faith will ignore it or get pissed off and disengage from the argument claiming "ridicule of my beliefs".

Anonymous wrote:"You make a valid argument" = Ranting Atheist

Yup; stupid mobile device.

Anonymous wrote:... if you're really aiming to give something up for good, as most people with the impulse to give something up do, choosing an event that lasts for only 40 days isn't the way to do it. It really just means that on Easter you plan to indulge, provided you make it that long. So nope, still not seeing your logic. Sorry.

You may want to let Irish Catholicism know they're "doing it wrong."

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=3539

Anonymous wrote:

RantingAtheist wrote:Why would a non-believer want to participate in Mardi Gras? Or Easter? Or Christmas? Why would a non-Jew go to seder, even if invited?

To the main question: The impulse of resolving to give something up is a universal one. In our culture, either Lent or New Year's are the two dates most associated with doing so. It seems pretty logical that someone raised in the US would choose one of those two days. Sorry, you can't patent or copyright cultural memes. If you want to keep your rites to yourself, you should do what other religions like Mormonism and Scientology do and keep 'em secret.

It's one thing to get drunk and flash strangers, or participate in an egg hunt. Ditto with decking the halls. Typically what people take from religious holidays and choose to "practice" (although I use that term loosely) are the fun things. If you're going to give something up, you don't need Lent to do it. You would, however, look like an idiot decorating a Christmas tree in July, Hallmark be damned. And if you're really aiming to give something up for good, as most people with the impulse to give something up do, choosing an event that lasts for only 40 days isn't the way to do it. It really just means that on Easter you plan to indulge, provided you make it that long. So nope, still not seeing your logic. Sorry.

It's always helpful to have some sort of arbitrary start date. For some, it's a "New Year's resolution". If you flub that, and dig into the cookies anyway, "Lent" gives you a second bite at the apple. Anyway, I'm not Catholic, so I didn't know there was a forty day limit. Don't people give up, say "smoking" for Lent? You learn something new every day!

When does Lent start, anyway? Is it too late to give something up?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am neither a Christian nor an Atheist, but i see nothing wrong with appropriating other religions' teaching and practices. Lent is a good example - a time for self-reflection and discipline. Is it really offensive if I choose to observe bits and pieces of your religion? I was raised in a religion that views all religion as equal, and I was encouraged to learn from and appreciate other religions. This possessiveness over traditions (when many of those traditions themselves are derived from other religions!) astounds me.

And why the @#$ do you care if someone gives up things for lent. Isn't your faith between you and God? Do you think God is going to be angry if non-Christians observe lent? It's like a petulant child getting angry when her little sister wants to watch Sesame Street with her. The petulant child is in no way affected by her little sister peeking at the screen, but throws a fit anyway.

I think you're missing the point here. If OP's BF is an athiest, he doesn't believe in God (or faith, for that matter). So why, exactly, would he want to participate in Lent? I agree with OP that this doesn't make much sense and would be inclined to be annoyed with the BF, too.

Why would a non-believer want to participate in Mardi Gras? Or Easter? Or Christmas? Why would a non-Jew go to seder, even if invited?

To the main question: The impulse of resolving to give something up is a universal one. In our culture, either Lent or New Year's are the two dates most associated with doing so. It seems pretty logical that someone raised in the US would choose one of those two days. Sorry, you can't patent or copyright cultural memes. If you want to keep your rites to yourself, you should do what other religions like Mormonism and Scientology do and keep 'em secret.

Anonymous wrote:What 11:29 said. You'd have to be blind to miss the atheist cries of "sheeple" and "sky fairies" on DCUM.

Ranting Atheist, if you don't want to be called a hypocrite, or have us wonder if you're a teenager, I suggest you revise your claim. (And nobody here is interested in your initiative to switch the debate from your own behavior and that of other atheists, to a debate on belief. So let it drop.)

I'd have to see a link or a quote to know the context, but in general the mud-slinging seems to be fairly two-sided.

Anonymous wrote:In another thread, you said that atheists have "no dogma" and don't all subscribe to the same set of non-beliefs.

Oh, one other thing: I know that in Mark evil spirits are supposed to have claimed that "Our name is Legion" but, really, there are more than one of us who are non-theist here on DCUM. If you keep conflating everyone, you risk coming off as a bit paranoid.

I see why you chose your user name. You take offensive easily and seem a bit immature. I'll blame it on your being in your late teen's...it's a rough time for many.

Not sure why you think I've taken offense. Heck, I haven't even had my first cup of coffee yet, so I'm feeling pretty low-key. As for the user name, that was chosen for me.

In another thread, you said that atheists have "no dogma" and don't all subscribe to the same set of non-beliefs. So, how can you now speak for them all to say that none take the position that I put forth? Could it not be true that some do and some don't? I participate on other message boards and we have many discussions about religion. I can tell you that there are MANY atheists who call religion/God/Jesus fairy tales/fairies in the sky/Sky-Daddy's, etc. Are you now playing ignorant?

I have participated in various threads that have devolved into slug-fests. I would say half of the time, this is percipitated by some non-theist making a joke about some specific piece of dogma, but just as often it's some grudge-bearing "Christian" who sees non-theists as some sort of "enemy". I think to any disinterested observer it's clear that the responsibility for the back-and-forth is mutual.

Of course, non-theists don't proclaim as one of the central tenets of their moral framework the injunction to "turn the other cheek" to be "meek" and to "forgive their enemies". So there's that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fail, OP....major fail. Mainly because Christians don't denigrate and show hatred and/or mock Hinduism.

New Poster here.

So, if a Christian does yoga it's fine. But if I, an agnostic/non-Christian, sings the Christmas Carols of my childhood to my child, hangs a stocking, and puts up a few lights, I'm "denigrating, showing hatred and mocking Christianity"? Can you explain that again?

How did you make that leap? I'm referring to the atheists who say that Christians:

-are sheeple
-believe in fairy tales, fairies in the sky, etc
-are dumb/silly to believe in some book that some men wrote
-use religion as a crutch

FWIW, agnostic folks are much more agreeable/approachable when it comes to discussing religion. Some atheists, on the other hand, are downright rabid in their hatred of all things Christian.

Just to clarify, atheists don't say Christianity is a fairy tale, or that God is a fairy in the sky, but rather that there is exactly as much evidence for belief in gods as for any given fairy in the sky. While you may not like this, this is objectively true. Furthermore, the Bible is some book that some men wrote. It's a perfectly valid opinion to find it silly to believe in that with no evidence.

Furthermore, these arguments inevitably arise in the context of threads here about larger issues. For example:

"X is wrong!"
"I disagree."
"But it says so right in the Bible."
"Ah, well, I'm an atheist. And the Bible's just a book some guy's wrote. Do you have an argument to support your position?"
"Ah! An atheist! Well, you have no morality anyway! And how dare you mock my faith!!!"

If talking to people who may not share your particular faith upsets you so, you should withdraw from civil society. Perhaps join a convent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did you really need a new thread just to say this?

Why didn't you post this there in that thread?

Because it involves more than one thread that ties a number of discussions together over several months of posts, not just a day's worth of posts about Lent. If someone tries to broaden a discussion past the OP, they get told to make a S/O thread. Now I guess if they make a S/O thread, they get an eyeroll for that, too.

Frankly though, I am surprised at the number of hostile posts in the beginning of Lent. How important can the season be if posters act this way on Ash Wednesday and the day after? Do you only care enough to tell other people they can't participate, and then ignore it until Easter?

Shh! No judging! Apparently "judging" Christians is the only behavior proscribed by modern mainstream American Christianity.

I'm going to hug you unless you recoil very quickly. I may even give you a peck on the cheek if you're not spry enough.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not 10:30. But I'm with her. I don't think calling out atheists on their awful behavior is unchristian. What is unchristian is how the "smug Christian" pretends this is about atheism per se, instead of about atheists' behavior. Don't twist the debate. Then read Luke - you're supposed to talk with other people about their bad behavior, but judging - atheists or your fellow Christians- is flat-out wrong.

Glad the Smug Christian's nasty, un-Christian attacks on other Christians provided some amusement for the Ranting Atheist, though.

Quick Smug Christian! Register the "SmugChristian" DCUM alias while it's still available! We need a team of psychologists to untangle PP, though. never seen anyone so quick to anger, so quick to cast stones, and so quick to go on the defensive: "I'm not judging! I'm just calling out bad behavior! You're judging!"

It's like a simmering gumbo of pathology.

Anonymous wrote:Fine, 10:30. But lack of centralization is not a blanket excuse for nasty and hypocritical atheist behavior.

To paraphrase Larry Summers, "There are assholes. Look around."